Quote:

---

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal appeals court on Tuesday declared California's same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, putting the bitterly contested, voter-approved law on track to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedents when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 _ a response to an earlier state court decision that legalized gay marriage _ was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

However, the appeals court said gay marriages cannot resume in the state until the deadline passes for Proposition 8 sponsors to appeal to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit. If such an appeal is filed, the panel's ruling would remain on hold until it's resolved.

"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," states the opinion written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, one of the court's most liberal judges.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Of course it is. Never doubt the 9th's eagerness to overturn any decision of the people to promote a profoundly Left wing agenda.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Of course it is. Never doubt the 9th's eagerness to overturn any decision of the people to promote a profoundly Left wing agenda.

---

Although in this case, I'd call it a decision by the people to enforce discrimination. I'll be glad to see the end of it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Although in this case, I'd call it a decision by the people to enforce discrimination. I'll be glad to see the end of it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
People said the same thing about interracial marriage. All you have to do is slip "consenting adults" into the definition. Problem solved.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
A good first step. Now on to appeals and probably the Supremes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

We discriminate all the time. Against polygamy, against child / adult sex, against incest... allow same sex 'marriage', then you lose any and all standing to keep any other sort of 'marriage' from being legal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

We discriminate all the time. Against polygamy, against child / adult sex, against incest... allow same sex 'marriage', then you lose any and all standing to keep any other sort of 'marriage' from being legal.

---

The standard argument of the fucking retarded.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
But speaking of retards reproducing, I'm guessing you're fine w/ that , too ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
We discriminate all the time. Against polygamy, against child / adult sex, against incest...

---

Quote:

---

allow same sex 'marriage', then you lose any and all standing to keep any other sort of 'marriage' from being legal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Not even your fellow conservative is with you on this one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
People said the same thing about interracial marriage. All you have to do is slip "consenting adults" into the definition. Problem solved.

---

So, you're equating interracial marriage, which is 1 man + 1 woman, to gay marriage ?

Really?

That's funny.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
People said the same thing about interracial marriage. All you have to do is slip "consenting adults" into the definition. Problem solved.

---

So, you're equating interracial marriage, which is 1 man + 1 woman, to gay marriage ?

Really?

That's funny.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

---

Let me see. Gender: something a person is born with, which generally stays the same into the adult years.

Race: something a person is born with, which generally stays the same into the adult years.

Same sex romantic love, co-habitance, and involvement in life decisions: possible.

Interacial romantic love, co-habitance, and involvement in life decisions: possible.

Same Sex child bearing and raising capacity: possible.

Interracial child bearing and raising capacity: possible.

Looks like I am.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Uh, no. Plenty of them have families even without science. I merely pointed out that with science, heterosexual reproduction no longer even applies.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Not even your fellow conservative is with you on this one.

---

True. Yet I manage to get my point across without name calling.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

But as Ive made clear, I don't consider Rappy worth anything but name-calling. I have more respect for the dog shit on my shoe.

And I am extremely amused that he doesn't seem to want to try to push back against yourt arguments. I believe that speaks to the strength of his conviction, and his true motive.

He's trolling for a fight with the libs, and doesn't really believe this BS all that much.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RionaEire:
So Geezer, you're paragraph on incest is a bit worrisome, you're saying there that since a brother and sister are grown they should be able to legally marry? You're disgusting, although I shouldn't be too surprised since most people around here are grotty about this topic, but they aren't even willing to say that one aloud but you are, ew.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RionaEire:
So Geezer, you're paragraph on incest is a bit worrisome, you're saying there that since a brother and sister are grown they should be able to legally marry? You're disgusting, although I shouldn't be too surprised since most people around here are grotty about this topic, but they aren't even willing to say that one aloud but you are, ew.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Not even your fellow conservative is with you on this one.

---

True. Yet I manage to get my point across without name calling.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Thanks for, again , proving my point.

You need science to create a family for you, not so w/ interracial marriage.

Not the same.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RionaEire:
So Geezer, you're paragraph on incest is a bit worrisome, you're saying there that since a brother and sister are grown they should be able to legally marry? You're disgusting, although I shouldn't be too surprised since most people around here are grotty about this topic, but they aren't even willing to say that one aloud but you are, ew.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RionaEire:
Just because people got away with stuff in the Bible doesn't mean I think its okay. They were like anyone else, if they could get away with it they would, people are notorious like that.

Parent and child is the grottiest, Geezer has sunk to a new low.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RionaEire:
Just because people got away with stuff in the Bible doesn't mean I think its okay. They were like anyone else, if they could get away with it they would, people are notorious like that.

Parent and child is the grottiest, Geezer has sunk to a new low.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

---

Hello,

I think the point that Geezer is trying to make is that it's none of his business what consenting adults do with each other. No matter how 'grotty' it is. It's their business, not his.

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RionaEire:
Just because people got away with stuff in the Bible doesn't mean I think its okay. They were like anyone else, if they could get away with it they would, people are notorious like that.

Parent and child is the grottiest, Geezer has sunk to a new low.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Of course, the only problem you have then is, what constistutes an 'adult' ? Is it 21? 18? 16? Common for minors to be allowed to marry, provided the spouse is of age. Are we going to 'discriminate', when it comes to the issue of same sex marriages ? Won't Dan and Joe be able to marry, if Dan is 30 and Joe is... 16 ?

---

Quote:

---

And what of incestual marriages ? Are they going to be subject to the same laws ? If so, why ?

---

Quote:

---

As noted, the problem with incestuous marriage, or incestuous sex at all, is the increased possibility of defective children. If there is a guarantee that there will be no children, who gets hurt?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I have no problem with polygamy either. Adults should be free to choose their relationships, and personally, I think it would be fine if legal definitions of marriage are done away with all together. Let people choose the kind of contract they want, and make it cheap to pick one off a legal rack and end all this nonsense.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Debateably, the people involved. Especially in an adult parent child relationship, ESPECIALLY in an adult minor relationship.

---

Quote:

---

But also, if you're talking true-exclusivity, and they follow your rule about not having kids, that's potentially wiping out part of a family genetic line. At the very least it's a relationship that would restrict hooking up with more suitable genetic partners, unless you're talking non-exclusivity.

---

Quote:

---

And that's if the birth control measures don't fail, and you have children produced by that relationship, which could be unfair health-risk wise to those kids.

---

Quote:

---

Or if the birth control doesn't have consequences on the side related to hormone levels, cancers, and etc.

---

Quote:

---

In the case of minors, it could stunt development, conception is easier due to hormones but child birth is more dangerous, and so on.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Rap. For an avowed athiest, a lot of your objections sure seem to come from a religious mindset. Even though you've rejected the church, looks like a lot of its notions of "sin" still linger.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Speaking from a purely practical perspective, relationships with a power disparity between partners are a serious legal liability issue. Even if everyone starts out as a consenting adult (in so far as consent in that case is possible), those relationships are at a higher risk for accusations of abuse, rape, or exploitation, if the relationship isn't those already.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Just basing my views on the past 5 to 10,000 years of human social interaction. As you noted, taboos are born out of practical observations , made by the 'tribal elders', or the known experiences of what's worked and what hasn't, and why. It's these 'laws' , which later manifested into religious doctrine, to coerce folks into doing what's 'good' for the community. Like how, at one time, there may have been good reasons for certain types of foods to be avoided. It wasn't so much "God™ said," , but it just made good common sense. Some things still apply, others don't, but it has nothing to do w/ who is saying it. At least for me, it's not a 'god thing' , as there is none.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
This does not mean there is no remedy. The govt is free to create another legal status for same sex couples that mirrors the one that exists for marriage. In other words, Civil Unions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

What compelling reason is there for not just allowing same-sex couples to marry each other? What harm does it do? Especially if you consider marriage from its civil and legal perspectives, rather than from a religious one?
"

---